Appeal No. 1998-2992 Application No. 08/539,276 Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the 1 respective positions of the appellants and the examiner. OPINION All of the rejections are reversed. All of the claims on appeal state that the first antenna and the second antenna “do not simultaneously transmit data to said subscriber station.” The examiner contends (answer, page 9) that “Dean, discloses the signal transmitted from different antennas, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, at different times which means signals are not simultaneously transmitted.” The appellants argue (brief, pages 2, 3 and 12) that the short delay of the delay device used in Dean causes the antennas to transmit the same signal substantially simultaneously to a subscriber receiver. In Dean, an analog transmitter 120 located in base station 100 transmits the same signal over two different distribution cables 130 and 132 and two different antennas located in node 200A (Figure 2). The signal that travels via cable 130 is delayed with respect to the signal that travels 1The statements of the rejections omit claims 57 and 115. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007